Jeremy Reed

[YASNY]

No Jackie, you didn't all those things. You did say KW overpaid for Garcia and used the following to back it up:

 

 

1. Reed's minor league statistics. ..... It's already been shown that those do not gaurentee major league success.

 

2. Reed's fast start ...... again, the first 50 or so AB's of someone's major league career are no indicator of major success, or even lack thereof. See Willie Mays.

 

The point is, is that's way too soon to determine if KW "paid too much" for Garcia. Reed may be a blip on the Mariners radar in 5 years and Garcia might win 3 consecutive Cy Young awards.

[DBAHO]

and Garcia might win 3 consecutive Cy Young awards.

Unless they move the fences back at the Cell, I think it's going to be a while before we see a Cy Young winner pitching for the White Sox.

[YASNY]

Unless they move the fences back at the Cell, I think it's going to be a while before we see a Cy Young winner pitching for the White Sox.

That wasn't the point.

[JoshPR]

Damn I remember when a lot of People tought the same about Craig Wilson in 1998

[The Critic]

For the record, he has a single, a walk, a strikeout and an error into the sixth inning tonight.

A STRIKEOUT AND AN ERROR?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

THANK GOD THE SOX TRADED HIM!!!

THAT'S ALL WE NEED, ANOTHER FREE-SWINGING, STONE-HANDED OUTFIELDER!!!!

 

[ZoomSlowik]

Damn I remember when a lot of People tought the same about Craig Wilson in 1998

How about a couple of more gems that used to be one of our top 5 prospects?

 

Chris Snopek

Mike Caruso

Aaron Myette

Scott Ruffcorn

James Baldwin

 

Not saying this has anything to do with the discussion, just wanted to throw out some names I could laugh at when I look back.

[babybearhater]

A STRIKEOUT AND AN ERROR?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

THANK GOD THE SOX TRADED HIM!!!

THAT'S ALL WE NEED, ANOTHER FREE-SWINGING, STONE-HANDED OUTFIELDER!!!!

 

 

I wish we would of packaged Greg Walker for Paul Molitor in that deal as well. Then we would've really scored. I bet he could still play too

[jackie hayes]

No Jackie, you didn't all those things.  You did say KW overpaid for Garcia and used the following to back it up:

 

 

1.  Reed's minor league statistics.  .....  It's already been shown that those do not gaurentee major league success.

 

2.  Reed's fast start ...... again, the first 50 or so AB's of someone's major league career are no indicator of major success, or even lack thereof.  See Willie Mays.

 

The point is, is that's way too soon to determine if KW "paid too much" for Garcia.  Reed may be a blip on the Mariners radar in 5 years and Garcia might win 3 consecutive Cy Young awards.

I have said something similar to that point, that KW overpaid, but not in this thread. You should stick to what I said here.

 

I said that 47 abs is not our only diagnostic. We have his minor-league stats first -- if those 47 ML abs were very much out of line with what we think he'd do, given the minor league stats, then we'd probably ignore them. As it stands, they don't have much effect on my opinion of him (I think he's good, but not likely THIS good), but given his minor league stats, they're not an aberration. In other words, there's a lot more reason to like Reed than 47 abs.

 

So your only real response to this is that minor league stats "do not gaurentee major league success". I never said they did. (Nor do past ML stats guarantee anything, thank goodness says Melvin Mora.) But they do give us some information about what type of a player he's going to be. That is where whitesox61382 disagreed -- he said minor league stats are "almost complete worthless" in determining a player's ML success. It's a fair argument, but every time I've seen actual studies, they find that minor league stats are very good predictors of ML success, nearly as good as past ML success (Bill James, David Grabiner). Unless you can show me a study that rejects this, I'm going to go on believing it.

[danman31]

I haven't read much of this thread, and don't plan on getting involved, but I would like to see the following answered. Many have brought up examples of guys who struggled their first 50 or so ABs but turned out great. That's not the case here thus holds no strength. I want an example of someone who tore it up their first 50 or so ABs that turned out terrible.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I haven't read much of this thread, and don't plan on getting involved, but I would like to see the following answered. Many have brought up examples of guys who struggled their first 50 or so ABs but turned out great. That's not the case here thus holds no strength. I want an example of someone who tore it up their first 50 or so ABs that turned out terrible.

Tuffy Rhodes. -- I don't know about that one.. I just remember the 3-HR debut, and his automatic induction into the hall of fame.

 

Actually I think he now has the sigle season record for HR's in Japan.

[Old Socks]

How do you trade someone who is untouchable?

 

The trade was stupid. What's next, Trade Anderson for Moyer? I hope Kenny doesn't read this s***, because I might have given him another stupid trade idea.

[CWSGuy406]

How do you trade someone who is untouchable?

 

The trade was stupid.  What's next,  Trade Anderson for Moyer?  I hope Kenny doesn't read this s***, because I might have given him another stupid trade idea.

LOL - so now we're comparing Moyer to Garcia?

[whitesoxfan99]

How do you trade someone who is untouchable?

 

The trade was stupid.  What's next,  Trade Anderson for Moyer?  I hope Kenny doesn't read this s***, because I might have given him another stupid trade idea.

Because there is no such thing as an untouchable player.

[qwerty]

Because there is no such thing as an untouchable player.

Exactly, if the right deal comes along anyone can go.

[MurcieOne]

Reed went 0-2.... left 3 on base. his average dipped 17 points.... what does all this mean? nothing cause its a september call-up.

[Rex Hudler]

I noticed that Reed was playing almost exclusively against right handers. I looked back at his stats and after he was traded to Seattle, he struggled against lefties in Tacoma, hitting only .234. Strange thing is he hit .355 against lefties at Charlotte and hit them well in Birmingham last year.

[SoxWatcher]

Because there is no such thing as an untouchable player.

Not for Kenny. No Sox player, and particularly no Sox prospect is untouchable. I hope you guys aren't in love with Anderson, Sweeney, or any Sox prospect, because Kenny would trade them all for the next grinder.

[whitesoxfan99]

Not for Kenny.  No Sox player, and particularly no Sox prospect is untouchable.  I hope you guys aren't in love with Anderson, Sweeney, or any Sox prospect, because Kenny would trade them all for the next grinder.

There is no such thing as an untouchable player for any GM in any sport. And prospects should be even less untouchable because they haven't proved a damn thing. If superstars like Shaq, T-Mac, A-Rod, Champ Bailey, etc. can get traded, anyone can get traded.

[YASNY]

I have said something similar to that point, that KW overpaid, but not in this thread.  You should stick to what I said here.

 

I said that 47 abs is not our only diagnostic.  We have his minor-league stats first -- if those 47 ML abs were very much out of line with what we think he'd do, given the minor league stats, then we'd probably ignore them.  As it stands, they don't have much effect on my opinion of him (I think he's good, but not likely THIS good), but given his minor league stats, they're not an aberration.  In other words, there's a lot more reason to like Reed than 47 abs.

 

So your only real response to this is that minor league stats "do not gaurentee major league success".  I never said they did.  (Nor do past ML stats guarantee anything, thank goodness says Melvin Mora.)  But they do give us some information about what type of a player he's going to be.  That is where whitesox61382 disagreed -- he said minor league stats are "almost complete worthless" in determining a player's ML success.  It's a fair argument, but every time I've seen actual studies, they find that minor league stats are very good predictors of ML success, nearly as good as past ML success (Bill James, David Grabiner).  Unless you can show me a study that rejects this, I'm going to go on believing it.

It doesn't matter if you said it in this thread or elsewhere on the board. You said it, and it's fair game.

 

You just rehashed everything you had previously argued, yet you failed to address the whole point of my post. It's too early to judge this deal.

[jackie hayes]

It doesn't matter if you said it in this thread or elsewhere on the board.  You said it, and it's fair game. 

 

You just rehashed everything you had previously argued, yet you failed to address the whole point of my post.  It's too early to judge this deal.

Fine, it's "fair game", but it's also irrelevant to anything that was being discussed. If you want to bring up a separate argument, don't make it sound like you're replying to anything. ("No Jackie, you didn't all those things.") I actually was saying "all those things" in this thread, and that's what I was defending. You admit yourself that I'd been saying those things by saying that I "rehashed" my argument.

 

As for this other argument, that it's too soon to judge a trade (and I want to say again that I never judged this trade in this thread) -- by that logic, no trade should be judged (at all, you say) till the end of the season, and most trades shouldn't be spoken of for many years -- b/c there is some positive probability that someone involved in the trade might do something. Sports fans on a sports fan site are not going to wait for the historical record, and there's no reason to do so. The end result is indeed what's important, but it does not actually tell you whether the trade was good -- that is, whether one should expect the trade would work out well and was better than other potential deals, given what you knew at the time. If we judged all transactions only by the end result, they'd almost all be bad, either because a throw-in played better than someone else that could have been thrown in, or because you could have traded for some at-the-time unknown player who had a breakout season. If we only use the information that was known at the time, though, there's no reason to avoid discussing the wisdom of the Garcia deal right now.

 

But if you want, we can start that Bell-for-Sosa thread now.

[whitesox61382]

The point is that his 47 AB's are out of line with both his minor league stats and reason for that matter. The sample size by itself is too small to make an accurate judgement, and more importantly when that stats are at one of the extremes(hitting over .400 or hitting under .100 for example), than they become even more unreliable. Furthermore, no one in their right mind would argue that Reed will be a career .400 hitter or anywhere close to that, so how can you consider that an accurate number to make a judgement on?

 

Can you please provide a link showing an article from a credit source in which they clearly state that minor league stats are a "very good predictor of ML sucess"? Because I subscribe to BA, the sabermetric stuff that James and others are involved in, and other stats oriented baseball sources and I have yet to see them come out and suggest that minor league stats are a very good predictor of ML sucess. There are plenty of articles in which they attempt to predict the stats a minor league player with put up in the majors based on their minor league stats, but they are way off an overwhelming percent of the time, which only further proves my point that minor league stats are not a good predictor of major league sucess, especially similar sucess in comparison to the stats/sucess they had in the minors. Sure you can make the arguement that a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right), but that career .330 hitter isn't guaranteed sucess in the majors, and this is a concept that you aren't simple grasping. Year in and year out I check minor league stats to find career minor leaguers leading the league/among the league leaders in key stats(BA, HR, RBI, ect), yet they never make the majors. Why is that? Simple, minor league stats aren't a good indicator of major league sucess. If you want an example, than look at the Sox minor league system about 5 years ago. It was filled with top prospects putting up good numbers in the minors, and look where the overwhelming majority of those prospects are now(struggling in the majors or haven't even reached the majors). This alone disproves the belief that minor league stats are a good indicator of major league sucess.

 

If you want to judge the trade right now, than the Sox are the clear winners. Garcia performance far outweigh Reed's 50 or so AB's, and Davis has outperformed Olivo(slightly), so if you want to judge the trade to this point, than it is clear that the Sox are the winners. However, the knowledgible fan says that we should wait a couple of years to see if Reed turns into a good major league player(unless you think 50 AB is enough to make that decision), to see if Olivo becomes a solid everyday catcher, to see if Morse can be an everyday player in the majors, and to see if Garcia is a quality starter for the Sox over the next couple of years. This will probably take a couple of years, but only than will we know which side truely won the trade in the long-term.

[jackie hayes]

The point is that his 47 AB's are out of line with both his minor league stats and reason for that matter. The sample size by itself is too small to make an accurate judgement, and more importantly when that stats are at one of the extremes(hitting over .400 or hitting under .100 for example), than they become even more unreliable. Furthermore, no one in their right mind would argue that Reed will be a career .400 hitter or anywhere close to that, so how can you consider that an accurate number to make a judgement on?

 

Can you please provide a link showing an article from a credit source in which they clearly state that minor league stats are a "very good predictor of ML sucess"? Because I subscribe to BA, the sabermetric stuff that James and others are involved in, and other stats oriented baseball sources and I have yet to see them come out and suggest that minor league stats are a very good predictor of ML sucess. There are plenty of articles in which they attempt to predict the stats a minor league player with put up in the majors based on their minor league stats, but they are way off an overwhelming percent of the time, which only further proves my point that minor league stats are not a good predictor of major league sucess, especially similar sucess in comparison to the stats/sucess they had in the minors. Sure you can make the arguement that a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right), but that career .330 hitter isn't guaranteed sucess in the majors, and this is a concept that you aren't simple grasping. Year in and year out I check minor league stats to find career minor leaguers leading the league/among the league leaders in key stats(BA, HR, RBI, ect), yet they never make the majors. Why is that? Simple, minor league stats aren't a good indicator of major league sucess. If you want an example, than look at the Sox minor league system about 5 years ago. It was filled with top prospects putting up good numbers in the minors, and look where the overwhelming majority of those prospects are now(struggling in the majors or haven't even reached the majors). This alone disproves the belief that minor league stats are a good indicator of major league sucess. 

 

If you want to judge the trade right now, than the Sox are the clear winners. Garcia performance far outweigh Reed's 50 or so AB's, and Davis has outperformed Olivo(slightly), so if you want to judge the trade to this point, than it is clear that the Sox are the winners. However, the knowledgible fan says that we should wait a couple of years to see if Reed turns into a good major league player(unless you think 50 AB is enough to make that decision), to see if Olivo becomes a solid everyday catcher, to see if Morse can be an everyday player in the majors, and to see if Garcia is a quality starter for the Sox over the next couple of years. This will probably take a couple of years, but only than will we know which side truely won the trade in the long-term.

I don't consider 47 abs "an accurate number to make a judgement on"! What the f***?! I said

 

I want to point out that "your belief that 47 AB's are enough to make an accurate opinion" is just plain wrong. I did not say that at all. My point is that we have more information than that.

 

And I said

 

I am not basing any opinion of Reed on 47 abs. Period. End of story.

 

And I said

 

I said that 47 abs is not our only diagnostic.

 

Make an accurate statement when you refer to what I wrote. But wait, there's more... As for hitting .400, I said

 

Nor did I say he was a HOFer... Nor did I say he was a career .400 hitter...

 

So next time, point out to me exactly what f***ing statement of mine you're referring to, and don't just assume you know what I'm talking about.

 

The relevant statistical question (I was referring to a statistical point, would you like me to quote that too?) is the following -- if Reed is actually a very good player, is it extremely unlikely that over a mere 47 abs he could have a stretch like he has? Looking at the regular variation of a player over a season, the answer is no, it's not that unlikely.

 

That's how statistics is done. (One way or another -- I'm not going to go into Bayesian v Classical statistics until this basic distinction is understood.)

 

Statistically, your statement that "a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right)" is inconsistent with your statement that minor league stats are "almost complete worthless". Look up Bayes law (or Bayes theorem).

 

This is just basic statistics, just math. But you don't use statistics as an argument, you talk about "guaranteed success". What is with this "guaranteed success" stuff? Can you "guarantee" that Freddy Garcia will be a particular type of pitcher? No player, minor or major leagues, guarantees anything. Or do you disagree?

 

So, if you're rejecting statistics, then I can't understand what language you're speaking. But you also say you're interested in "sabermetric stuff", which is all statistics, so I just don't understand if you accept statistics or not.

 

As for the cites, sure, here you go.

 

Clay Davenport on his own translations.

 

David Grabiner's bit on James' work.

 

From Davenport's article,

 

For this article, I am going to look at how the statistics for a player compare from one year to the next: the goal being to show, as James said ten years ago, that minor league statistics, properly interpreted, are just as useful as major league statistics for projecting future performance. This is still true, and DTs for minor league performance pass the test of being just as useful as major league statistics, and beyond that, DTs do this better than the MLEs put out by STATS.

 

It's important to remember in this that major league stats are quite variable too.

 

Last, but not least, I've never downplayed Garcia's talent -- in fact, all I can recall saying is that he's a good enough strikeout pitcher that I'm not too concerned that he throws so many fly balls -- all I've said in regards to the trade is that (1) Reed appears to be a very good player, not an 'average' (just another) minor leaguer at all, and (2) we didn't need to give him up to get Garcia. In fact, almost every single critic of the trade that I've seen has said the same thing.

 

Why bother, every time I make a clear point, it seems to be filtered out. The very next post is going to be, "You're an idiot. Garcia doesn't suck!"

[greg775]

I'll say one thing about this horrific trade ...

Ben Davis better not be part of our team next year.

Poor Ben cannot hit.

It's Burke and whomever ... no more Ben please.

[BlackBetsy]

I'll back up whitesox on this one. Minor league performance is not a quality indicator of major league success. Yes, you would take someone that did well in the minors over someone that didn't (assuming neither has done much in the majors), but there are a ton of players that do very well in the minors that did little or nothing in the pros, despite everyone's belief to the contrary.

 

There are few (if any) baseball players who hit more than .400 for half a season in the Southern League and did not become successful regulars in the Major Leagues.

 

A prime example is our own Jon Garland. He absolutely dominated in the minors, but has yet to do anything of importance on the Sox

 

Not true. Jon Garland pitched well, and had a good record and a good ERA, but gave up a fair amount of hits, walked too many, and didn't strike out enough. His peripheral statistics were not dominant by any measure.

 

That said, I have no problem trading Reed for Garcia at that point in the season if you think you have a good shot at resigning Garcia.

 

Here's the problem with Reed. His value drops dramatically when you move him to LF where he belongs. His production is probably similar to Carlos's, with more OBP but much less SLG. It doesn't bother me that the Sox traded a corner OF prospect for a top of the rotation starter. Not one bit.

[Old Socks]

There are few (if any) baseball players who hit more than .400 for half a season in the Southern League and did not become successful regulars in the Major Leagues. 

 

 

 

Not true.  Jon Garland pitched well, and had a good record and a good ERA, but gave up a fair amount of hits, walked too many, and didn't strike out enough.  His peripheral statistics were not dominant by any measure.

 

That said, I have no problem trading Reed for Garcia at that point in the season if you think you have a good shot at resigning Garcia.

 

Here's the problem with Reed.  His value drops dramatically when you move him to LF where he belongs.  His production is probably similar to Carlos's, with more OBP but much less SLG.  It doesn't bother me that the Sox traded a corner OF prospect for a top of the rotation starter.  Not one bit.

Yeah, but the Sox will pay Garcia $27MM over the next three years, and the Mariners will pay Reed about $1MM over the next three years. I lthink they could have bought some pitching with that money, maybe even Garcia.